R v Sipho Siphika

In a criminal appeal, an applicant’s private interests in avoiding reputational, financial or family consequences will not ordinarily displace the public interest in open justice. A convicted person pursuing an appeal should be named unless a prescribed exception or another compelling reason justifies anonymity.

Alleged investigative failures, uncalled witnesses and missing material do not make a conviction unsafe where the proposed inquiries were not reasonably required or could not have affected the outcome. Allegations of deficient representation require an arguable basis for doubting the competence or fairness of the defence. The appellate court will refuse leave where the trial was fair and the conviction is safe.

The applicant was convicted unanimously, after a retrial in the Crown Court at Croydon, of rape. The issue at trial was whether sexual intercourse with a work colleague after an office party had been consensual. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

He renewed applications for a 236-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction, for leave to appeal, and for a representation order. He alleged abuse of process through inadequate investigation, misconduct by his trial lawyers, and denial of a fair trial. He also sought anonymity in the appeal.

1. The court refused anonymity. The applicant relied on possible effects upon his children, reputation, income and voluntary work. Those were private interests. They did not outweigh the public interest in open justice, including the public’s right to know who has been convicted and who challenges that conviction. No prescribed exception, or other sufficient reason, justified departing from the ordinary rule that an applicant in a criminal appeal is named.

2. The abuse-of-process ground was not arguable. Although investigators must pursue reasonable lines of inquiry, the applicant’s proposed inquiries were not shown to be reasonable or capable, separately or cumulatively, of producing a different outcome. Relevant evidence from some proposed witnesses had been recorded as agreed facts. There were proper reasons for not calling other witnesses. The circumstances of missing CCTV were explained and its absence did not amount to an arguable abuse of process.

3. There was no arguable criticism of trial counsel or solicitors. The material placed before the court did not suggest that counsel had failed to conduct the defence fully and fairly. Nor did the court identify any basis for doubting the professionalism or competence of the defence team.

4. The applicant received a fair trial and the conviction was safe. The central issue was whether the jury could be sure that the complainant was truthful about events in the hotel room. The jury’s conclusion was supported by the evidence, including a text sent by the applicant to a friend shortly after the events.

5. The court refused the extension of time. It stated that, even if time had been extended, it would have refused leave to appeal against conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2024] EWCA Crim 633, refused the renewed application for an extension of time and stated that leave to appeal would in any event have been refused.

• Crown Court at Croydon — following a retrial before HHJ Charles, convicted the applicant unanimously of rape on 30 March 2022 and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment on 31 March 2022.